1 2026:CGHC:24628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6261 of 2021 1 - Pramod Upadhyay S/o Late Kanhilya Lal Upadhyay Aged About 68 Years Retired Assistant Revenue Inspector/asst. Grade-Iii Under Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Secretary, General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Second Floor, Old Police Head Quarter Premises District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Vibhore Goverdhan, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents particularly the respondent 'no. 5 to absorb the service of petitioner in Municipal Corporation Raigarh in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1769/2011 vide its order dated 01.04.2011 and the decisions/circulars/ policies of the State Government with all consequential benefits. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order/directions towards the respondents to pay all the service and pensionary benefits to the petitioner with interest. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction towards the respondents to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner within stipulated period in accordance with the rules and policy of the state government. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 3 (hereinafter referred to as “MPSRTC”) on 16.1.1981 to the post of Conductor and was posted in Raigarh Division. After bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh on 1.11.2000, the State of Chhattisgarh carved out and vide notifications dated 26.12.2002 & 27.12.2002, State of Chhattisgarh decided to dissolve the MPSRTC in the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was accommodated in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and he joined services on 14.11.2005. The petitioner claimed absorption in service, interalia on the ground that services of one of the employees A.K. Dwivedi had been absorbed in the Department of Law and Legislature, State of Chhattisgarh. 3) Initially, WPS No. 1769 of 2011 was filed, which was disposed of vide order of 1.4.2011 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in accordance with the rules and policy of the State regarding absorption. The petitioner got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities on 13.4.2011 and according to the petitioner, the same has not been decided till date. This writ petition was filed on 3.10.2021 claiming therein absorption in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that similarly situated employee Shri A.K. Dwivedi, was considered for absorption by the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, the 4 petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. He would submit that prior to date of superannuation, a representation was also made by the petitioner, which has not been decided by the respondent authorities. He would pray to allow this petition. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that this writ petition has been preferred after a delay of 10 years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. They would contend that if no action was taken by the respondent authorities on the representation submitted pursuant to order passed in WPS No.1769 of 2011, the petitioner should have preferred a contempt petition against the respondent authorities. They would further submit that as the petitioner has already retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation, his claim with regard to absorption cannot be considered and the delay part has not been explained properly. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7) In para 7 of the writ petition, it has been categorically stated that the petition has been filed within period of limitation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2011, whereas the present petition was filed on 3.10.2021. Earlier, a writ petition was filed which was 5 disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner made a representation but no decision was taken and thereafter, the petitioner did not approach any of the authorities or Court for redressal of his grievance. Since the petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2011, his claim for absorption practically cannot be considered after retirement. 8) In a similar writ petition seeking identical relief, namely WPS No.3199 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 21.6.2024. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 10) Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi